Jaskaran Singh @ Sethu v. State Of Haryana
-1-
!"#" $% &'' () ( * ( ''
"
" $ + , +#-# ( ''' #. $/ $
0% 12 0' ( ( (
!
""""
( ( 3 '
# $
&'&()()( $!
% $!# * %+ * $ %% ,-.(-/-01(( 23, &(1
)((0)(&1% )01440.543*
&' /&15' / ) #$
23, &(1
)((0)(&1#!23, 6 6 -& 4 % 23, -
% $ % ,-.(-/-01((
%
!# $ $ $!*
-2- .
$
%
&'&()()(
%% ' # % $ $ # * 3 $ * 7( / / 8 *
!"
# 6
% 7( 74 / .'&.') .'0** $ % 9
/3 $$ $$ !
!%
% / : ;! $% $
<$ * Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai vs. State of Gujarat, 2003(1) RCR (Criminal) 380 !% ;
$
! ; ! $ ! $= ! *
-3- $ $! 3 $ ! $ ;% 3 %$ $!* 7 >
%%
0 3 % 5 #*
? @ -
A vehicle used for committing rape and murder is being released in the garb of Section 451 Cr.P.C. as interpreted by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sunderbhai Ambalal Desai's case (supra). When the vehicles seized in such heinous crimes are released for interim custody, there is no logic in denying interim custody of the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act. Neither the State nor the owner of the vehicle is going to be benefited if the vehicle in the premises of the police station occupies a larger space posing inconvenience to the Police Department. Further, it is an open secret that when a vehicle is parked unattended, the valuable parts of the vehicle are casually taken away or stolen.
Finally, when the Court comes to a conclusion that the vehicle was used for committing the crime, the vehicle which was kept in the open would have substantially deteriorated. Likewise, if the Courts take a final decision that the vehicle was not at all used for commission of the crime or the vehicle was used without the knowledge of the owner thereof, the owner will have to collect only the scrap of the vehicle.
-4nobody is going to be benefited out of idle parking of vehicle totally unattended in the premises of the police station.
On a careful perusal of the above observation made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, we find that no distinction was made between the vehicles seized under the Scheme of Cr.P.C. and the vehicles seized under the NDPS Act. In the special facts and circumstances of that case, the Hon'ble Supreme Court came to a conclusion that the High Court was not justified in releasing the vehicle. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has not laid down in the above judgement that the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act is not to be released on sapurdari. There was also no specific observation that the vehicles seized under the NDPS Act will have to be treated separately while considering the plea for interim custody thereof.
Therefore, the above observation made by Hon'ble Supreme Court cannot be cited for rejecting the plea for release of the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act on sapurdari. In Tarsem Singh's case (supra), a totally different issue as to whether a Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate who was not the Special Judge conferred with the power to try the case under the NDPS Act could pass an order releasing the vehicle on sapurdari had arisen for determination. In the aforesaid case, the Division Bench of this Court has not made any observation that the trial Judge empowered to try the case under the NDPS Act has no authority to release the vehicle for interim custody on sapurdari. Nor was any decision taken in the said case that the vehicle seized under the NDPS Act cannot at all be released on sapurdari.
-5- The revision petition be posted before the learned Single Judge for determination of the revision in the light of the reference answered by us.
A !* $% &'% (% % &% - C ! "# $$ & ''
%& ($) * + , * -.
"1.
Owner of the article would not suffer because of its remaining unused or by its misappropriation;
2.
Court or the police would not be required to keep the article in safe custody;
3.
If the proper panchnama before handing over possession of article is prepared, that can be used in evidence instead of its production before the Court during the trial. If necessary, evidence could also be recorded describing the nature of the property in detail; and 4.
This jurisdiction of the Court to record evidence should be exercised promptly so that there may not be further chance of tampering with the articles."
Since the vehicle in question is lying unattended and is parked in Police Station Special Task Force, Phase IV Mohali, its condition will deteriorate day-by-day and it will be reduced to junk.
Accordingly, the present application is allowed and the vehicle in question i.e. Swift Dzire bearing registration
-6No.PB-13-BB-1852 is ordered to be released to the applicant-appellant on superdari, on his furnishing indemnity bonds/surety bonds of the like amount or on the terms and conditions which may be imposed by Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate, SAS Nagar, Mohali. The applicant-appellant shall submit an undertaking that the said vehicle shall not be put to any illegal use in future and he will produce the vehicle in the Court, if so required. '/.(01$.$ D E:
1 3 = ;
! 3 ! %
!-$!-
! $
;
&( %!
? @ = + * $ % % ,-.(-/-01(( $ % !$ G !$ ;
!$ $!*
% G/ !
% 11.
In addition, the petitioner shall submit an undertaking that the said vehicle shall not be sold, its physical condition changed or be put to any illegal use in future and that he will produce the vehicle in the Court, if so required.
( (
&'' (
+ #.
6"$78+
# $ /% #8
+ + . +
9:
% #8